That does not inspire confidence. I guess he is the conservative, run first OC-type Pete likes, but that wasn't what I was looking for. I was hoping we would pick up someone better in the passing game, since Pete and John don't seem capable of building a good O-line and finding a capable RB with Marshawn gone.

'Andrew Luck did complete a career-high 63.5 percent of his passes under Schottenheimer in 2016, however, and Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times tweets some in the Seahawks organization were impressed with how he tailored an offense around Jacoby Brissett‘s mobility.'

Maybe there's some hope as he coached Brees, too so he knows a little about shorter QB's.Like other posters have said, though, he fits the run first type our FO wants to play. Now to get a stud RB to make it happen.

Schottenheimers Offenses have a lot of pre-snap motion. That's something we haven't seen under Pete and with Bevell.It's built on the Coryell model and is also used by Sean Payton and Belichick, so we at least should see something a little different. TE is also a big factor with him often using 2 TEs in the passing game.It's going to be interesting to see how the Offense evolves and the players adapt.

NorthHawk wrote:Schottenheimers Offenses have a lot of pre-snap motion. That's something we haven't seen under Pete and with Bevell.It's built on the Coryell model and is also used by Sean Payton and Belichick, so we at least should see something a little different. TE is also a big factor with him often using 2 TEs in the passing game.It's going to be interesting to see how the Offense evolves and the players adapt.

That’s good to hear about the presnap motion. I would love some changes and Payton and Belichick are good references.

Not a sexy hire, but he did do OK with what he had to work with in Indy.Brissett is still learning, but demonstrated some playmaking ability.

I also woulda liked to go outside the norm for this one, but focusing on a RB 1st approach - provided we find one that's effective - is good to hear. It isn't necessarily huge points we need to put up, as much as it is moving the chains more and giving our D more rest along the way. Ever since we lost Beast, Nobody has stepped up to the plate in terms of effectiveness or health. Time to take the Best RB you can in April. Even with a crap line a talented kid will be able to limit the negative plays behind scrimmage:)

They Have to start drafting OL guys that played at least 3 yrs of the position in college.NO more basketball players.NO more projects.

Just eliminating those 2 Flawed approaches will be a positive sign.Oh, and maybe an offense that allows RW to make quick reads (instead of holding onto the ball duing 5 or 7 step drop backs, lol) and our offense to move the chains more effectively. Cable's Crap OL demanded that Bevelll use this approach as a signature, but instead ol' Darrell just buried his head in the ground, still pretending that it was 2013 when his vanilla offense worked. Our opponents knew our game plan as well as we did, lol, and that's why this firing was at least 2 yrs overdue.

c_hawkbob wrote:I'm OK with Schott as OC if it's who Pete think he can work with. I can't pretend to know as much about these candidates a Pete does.

I can't either but I do in fact know that, he's never actually been, you know... Successful. At all.His best offense was with the Jets, it was mediocre at best really.I get Pete wants to get back to running the ball and a ball control offense, but I'd have been much much more interested in the Eagles o.c. as per those rumors.

The pre-snap motion is intended to identify the keys for the QB and provide more options.It'll be a bit of a learning curve for Russell, but he should be able to master it if Schottenheimer is a good teacher.

My best take on this is that they didn't mess around. Get someone in here and allow him the time to choose his coaches and get acquainted with the players he has. Free agency and the draft will be on us soon, even if the interval seems interminable to fans, it is full steam ahead for the teams. This is go time for the front office.

I do not have a take on Schottenheimer. Our decision makers apparently like him, so OK.

Sista, that atavar or whatever we call it is so awesome. I find myself just captured by it. Brilliant.

According to Pete, the reason they pounced on him relatively quickly was that they knew who it was they wanted so they pulled the trigger to lock him up "before other teams got involved." Since he's coming from one of the worst teams in the league and hasn't had a great track record, I'm a little unclear as to who those teams might have been.

As far as yielding to Pete's judgement on this matter, I'll do it without hesitation when it involves the defense, but not nearly as quickly when it involves the offense. But apparently he knew who it was he wanted, so we'll see.

RiverDog wrote:According to Pete, the reason they pounced on him relatively quickly was that they knew who it was they wanted so they pulled the trigger to lock him up "before other teams got involved." Since he's coming from one of the worst teams in the league and hasn't had a great track record, I'm a little unclear as to who those teams might have been.

As far as yielding to Pete's judgement on this matter, I'll do it without hesitation when it involves the defense, but not nearly as quickly when it involves the offense. But apparently he knew who it was he wanted, so we'll see.

I take is as a why take a chance and wait when you know who you want situation. I don't know if it's a good or bad hire, but at least it's moving forward.

Here's an insight into his Offense and philosophy. The article is a few years old and is about using the TE's, but it talks about a myriad of formations.This might give some of us hope of at least some creativity that we didn't see in the last few years and a little of what to expect.

NorthHawk wrote:I take is as a why take a chance and wait when you know who you want situation. I don't know if it's a good or bad hire, but at least it's moving forward.

Here's an insight into his Offense and philosophy. The article is a few years old and is about using the TE's, but it talks about a myriad of formations.This might give some of us hope of at least some creativity that we didn't see in the last few years and a little of what to expect.

The article discusses one part of the OC equation, ie scheming and play design. The other part is identification of talent to fit the system, which IMO is where our previous OC/OL coach failed miserably. Hopefully Schott has been around the game long enough, including some exposure to SEC football, that he's developed a good eye for talent.

Jimmy will be required to block, which still may count him out, think of Gates and Kellen Winslow and biggest examples, remember it's run game still but screens and passing and check downs as well, you need a TE to seal and release into the pattern. If Jimmy would embrace that he could have one of the biggest seasons of his career in both yards receptions and Touchdowns.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend, a passionate Seahawk fan that used to post with us a lot, that has a little different take on our recent hiring's that I think deserves some thought., He's pretty disappointed, says that Pete is surrounding himself with yes men that think like he does, that his advancing age is causing him to seek a certain comfort zone where there is little if any disagreement with anything he says. Rather than injecting some badly needed new blood and new ideas into a team that still has a decent core and a once in a generation talent at QB, it's the SOS with different faces. He thinks that Carroll is coasting into retirement and will be gone in two years, not having come close to duplicating his previous efforts that brought home two of our three SB appearances and our only Lombardi.

Not exactly something you'd hear coming out of the mouths of the standard Kool-Aid servers.

RiverDog wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, a passionate Seahawk fan that used to post with us a lot, that has a little different take on our recent hiring's that I think deserves some thought., He's pretty disappointed, says that Pete is surrounding himself with yes men that think like he does, that his advancing age is causing him to seek a certain comfort zone where there is little if any disagreement with anything he says. Rather than injecting some badly needed new blood and new ideas into a team that still has a decent core and a once in a generation talent at QB, it's the SOS with different faces. He thinks that Carroll is coasting into retirement and will be gone in two years, not having come close to duplicating his previous efforts that brought home two of our three SB appearances and our only Lombardi.

Not exactly something you'd hear coming out of the mouths of the standard Kool-Aid servers.

I can see his point, but I think the counter is Pete doesn't want to be butting heads philosophically for the length of the OC's time here.There are other things to do on this team and trying to rein in the OC shouldn't be one of them. Getting a gear that doesn't mesh probably won't help performance.That being said, I'd like Pete to be less hands on with the Offense, so a more aggressive OC would work.Unfortunately, I doubt they would draft or sign players to that type of OC's wishes, but will to Pete's philosophy.

RiverDog wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, a passionate Seahawk fan that used to post with us a lot, that has a little different take on our recent hiring's that I think deserves some thought., He's pretty disappointed, says that Pete is surrounding himself with yes men that think like he does, that his advancing age is causing him to seek a certain comfort zone where there is little if any disagreement with anything he says. Rather than injecting some badly needed new blood and new ideas into a team that still has a decent core and a once in a generation talent at QB, it's the SOS with different faces. He thinks that Carroll is coasting into retirement and will be gone in two years, not having come close to duplicating his previous efforts that brought home two of our three SB appearances and our only Lombardi.

Not exactly something you'd hear coming out of the mouths of the standard Kool-Aid servers.

I don't really see this. I think he believes so strongly in his overall philosophy that he wants guys who are like-minded, not because he doesn't like controversy but because he believes it works. Why hire a guy who runs an offense that you philosophically don't agree with. it doesn't make any sense.

I don't really see this. I think he believes so strongly in his overall philosophy that he wants guys who are like-minded, not because he doesn't like controversy but because he believes it works. Why hire a guy who runs an offense that you philosophically don't agree with. it doesn't make any sense.

Not to mention every time something didn't work, he would be thinking he should have done it differently and more in keeping with his picture of what an Offense should be.I don't think a coach can be successful if he doesn't trust one of his coordinators.

RiverDog wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, a passionate Seahawk fan that used to post with us a lot, that has a little different take on our recent hiring's that I think deserves some thought., He's pretty disappointed, says that Pete is surrounding himself with yes men that think like he does, that his advancing age is causing him to seek a certain comfort zone where there is little if any disagreement with anything he says. Rather than injecting some badly needed new blood and new ideas into a team that still has a decent core and a once in a generation talent at QB, it's the SOS with different faces. He thinks that Carroll is coasting into retirement and will be gone in two years, not having come close to duplicating his previous efforts that brought home two of our three SB appearances and our only Lombardi.

Not exactly something you'd hear coming out of the mouths of the standard Kool-Aid servers.

Its an interesting take RD and I was thinking the same thing. Carroll was dragged kicking and screaming into changing coaches IMO and hes trying to keep the status quo in his comfort zone philosophically. If they were in such a hurry to hire Schottenheimer etc why did it take the better part of a week and a half to fire these guys to begin with?I hope it's all good.

RiverDog wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend, a passionate Seahawk fan that used to post with us a lot, that has a little different take on our recent hiring's that I think deserves some thought., He's pretty disappointed, says that Pete is surrounding himself with yes men that think like he does, that his advancing age is causing him to seek a certain comfort zone where there is little if any disagreement with anything he says. Rather than injecting some badly needed new blood and new ideas into a team that still has a decent core and a once in a generation talent at QB, it's the SOS with different faces. He thinks that Carroll is coasting into retirement and will be gone in two years, not having come close to duplicating his previous efforts that brought home two of our three SB appearances and our only Lombardi.

Not exactly something you'd hear coming out of the mouths of the standard Kool-Aid servers.

Did your friend say what coaches aren't surrounded by "yes" men? I've never heard of anyone arguing with Belichick or Tom Coughlin or many head coaches. A head coach hires coaches that support his philosophy and execute his plans without much questioning. Pete has a very clear philosophy he wants to maintain and that is what he's trying to do. In fact, it's a complete falsehood that good leaders surround themselves with people that question them. I've read a bunch on leadership and leaders usually find people that do what they tell them without much resistance. The thing that sets them apart is the competence of the leader rather than the ability of his subordinates to question him. I'm not too sure why your friend thinks Pete is coasting into retirement. There is only one Belichick. If your friend is comparing Pete to Belichick, then he is expecting Pete to equal the best coach in history. That's not likely to happen. As it is Pete is one of the best coaches of the last decade, that's not too bad a place. If he can infuse enough new blood to slightly alter his original scheme, then we'll do well. Mainly we need to get healthy and rebuild the run game while implementing a different plan on the O-line. Not everything is wrong with this team, not even close.

I see this as Pete going to guys he knows and trusts that have been successful, Schott with his dad and his record with QB's and running game, everyone else a tie from the past that he trusts and will have his back, think of it as an all star coaching push for Pete.

chris98251 wrote:I see this as Pete going to guys he knows and trusts that have been successful, Schott with his dad and his record with QB's and running game, everyone else a tie from the past that he trusts and will have his back, think of it as an all star coaching push for Pete.

I wouldn't go into Kansas City trumpeting Marty Shchottenheimer's coaching record. You'd get more disgusting looks that you would if Rosie O'Donnell appeared in a string bikini. You can make as many excuses as you want, crap teams he's had to work with and so on, but the fact is that Brian Schottenheimer does not have a lot of feathers in his cap.

And ASF, I'd have to do some research into coaching hires before I could agree or disagree with your assertation that most coaches do the same thing Pete has done, ie always hire within a narrow school of thought that aligns almost perfectly with his overall strategy, but my sense is that there have been head coaches that have not been as insistent on towing the HC's general philosophy and have strayed away from it.

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with this take, especially the part about Pete coasting into retirement. He's made enough money to where if he didn't have his heart in it, he could easily punch out and sell books or appear as a sports analyst. But the rest of it, sticking with his yes men, is something to think about. If the next couple of seasons turn out to be carbon copies of the past few, you can bet that people will be re-visiting these hires. He's not going to be able to throw these guys under the bus as he's done with Bevell, Cable, and Richard.

He’s hardly throwing anyone under the bus RD. Bevell should have been gone Feb 3 2015. Cable probably a year ago at least. The ravens fired their OC in 2012 during a lombardi winning season. Mike Mularkey got fired after going to the divisional. It’s a new league all of a sudden. I hope for the best but the hires look like same old system. Hopefully not.

Hawktawk wrote:He’s hardly throwing anyone under the bus RD. Bevell should have been gone Feb 3 2015. Cable probably a year ago at least. The ravens fired their OC in 2012 during a lombardi winning season. Mike Mularkey got fired after going to the divisional. It’s a new league all of a sudden. I hope for the best but the hires look like same old system. Hopefully not.

He's firing one set of coaches and exchanging them for a very like minded second set. That would indicate that Pete doesn't see anything wrong with his run first offensive philosophy, that he feels that it was the execution of that philosophy that has led us off course. That suggests to me that he's attributing the team's woes solely to the performance of the assistant coaches, ie throwing them under the bus.

And there's a good chance that Pete's right, that his run first philosophy is still as effective as it's always been and that Bevell and Cable were underperforming and holding our team back, in which case one could expect this team to start realizing expectations again.